ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| reply to pnh102
Re: Lock your
said by pnh102  :said by wentlanc :Even in a civil case, the person raising the suit has to prove that you were the person infringing. They are looking for an end node to assign responsibility to. They have to prove that they have the right one. True. And in many situations the RIAA has succeeded in doing this. Regardless of whether wifi was "hacked" or not the end user was still held responsible. That's because their defenses were laughable.
You got one chick who says, "I'm too old to listen to that". Nevermind she has kids who aren't.
You got another chick who says, "well, my kid did it, so I'm not responsible, and you can't go after her, because she's underage". Nevermind the fact that in that case, custody applies...making the mother responsible by proxy.
You got another chick who now says, "but someone stole my WiFi!"
I'm interested as to why nobody has said:
- For uploads: "A virus was loaded on my computer, named as an MP3 file. I opened it from email apparently. My antivirus did not catch it. It in turn sent the MP3 to a bunch of people so they could also get infected."
- For downloads: "Yes, I did download that song...from my own web service. I already owned it, I just shifted it to a new computer."
- For uploads: "I thought it was just a song sampler from Amazon MP3."
- For downloads: "No, I recorded that from SIRIUS radio".
On the first one, it's way too possible for that to have happened.
On the second one, that happens all the time.
On the third one, it's stretching it...but entirely possible. Especially if you then went back and actually bought the song from there at $1 after you got the threat, proving you didn't steal it (theoretically).
On the fourth one, it's not illegal to record radio, so that'll shut them up quickly.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer; just throwing junk out there. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to wentlanc
said by wentlanc :Even in a civil case, the person raising the suit has to prove that you were the person infringing. They are looking for an end node to assign responsibility to. They have to prove that they have the right one. True. And in many situations the RIAA has succeeded in doing this. Regardless of whether wifi was "hacked" or not the end user was still held responsible.
--
"At the moment of conception." |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :But to be on point, I doubt this defense would work in the USA. In civil court, you are presumed liable unless you can use a preponderance of evidence to prove you are not liable. Even if you can claim that someone else was mooching your wifi, you still have to prove that it was that "someone else" engaging in the infringing activities and not you. Even in a civil case, the person raising the suit has to prove that you were the person infringing. They are looking for an end node to assign responsibility to. They have to prove that they have the right one.
cw |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to snipper_cr
said by snipper_cr :said by RARPSL :You also want to turn off the SSID Beacon and turn on MAC Filtering. While the lack of an SSID will prevent the network from being "seen" by simple probe packages and the Operating System it will not eliminate it. The MAC filtering will require the attacker to monitor the transmissions to get a MAC Address to claim to be so makes it harder but not impossible to get into the Router. In both cases you want to make it as hard as possible to get in so as to make them go after easier prey. Smart advice from an even smarter man! Indeed, mac adresses can be spoofed, cloaked networks can be unclocked but as RARPSL said the idea is to make it as hard as possible to get a hacker (of which i would say .01% of the population actually can hack a wireless network, and .01% of those would care to go after yours) to hack your network. Thank you for the praise. 
The point is that if someone really wants to get on your Wireless Router, they can BUT most people will just look for an easy target and using encryption, no SSID Broadcast, MAC Filtering, etc. will make you not an easy target or not easily visible. The ones who will normally get hacked/used are running a wide open router and the more you lock it down the lower the chance yours will get used. If a casual hacker was looking for a router to use they'd go for the one that needs no effort to use.
Whenever I set up a router for anyone I lock it down as much as possible just for safety use. How much I lock it is partly do to location and other factors. An Apartment complex location gets a no SSID Beacon (if it is not "There" it will not even be seen). I go with WPA (or WAP if WPA is not available) and MAC Filtering (unless there is a need to be able to have Laptops that can temporally use the router). The WPA/WAP codes are stored on the main machine to allow the add-on laptop along with "How To" instructions. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to roc5955
said by roc5955 :Though this may have changed since Bushco, Inc. was elected ... Elected? I thought he stole the election, twice. 
But to be on point, I doubt this defense would work in the USA. In civil court, you are presumed liable unless you can use a preponderance of evidence to prove you are not liable. Even if you can claim that someone else was mooching your wifi, you still have to prove that it was that "someone else" engaging in the infringing activities and not you.
--
"At the moment of conception." |
|
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
said by ReVeLaTeD : Unless you can prove that I knowingly and willfully left it unlocked for that purpose - which also isn't easy to prove. But I bet I can find quite a few specialists who will substantiate how easy it is to crack Wi-Fi security in any case. Don't wifi routers come unlocked by default? If you don't lock it, it is the burden of the prosecutor to determine that it wasn't stolen. They have to prove your guilt. Though this may have changed since Bushco, Inc. was elected, but I don't think they have repealed that amendment of the constitution YET!
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." |
|
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs:
| reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL :You also want to turn off the SSID Beacon and turn on MAC Filtering. While the lack of an SSID will prevent the network from being "seen" by simple probe packages and the Operating System it will not eliminate it. The MAC filtering will require the attacker to monitor the transmissions to get a MAC Address to claim to be so makes it harder but not impossible to get into the Router. In both cases you want to make it as hard as possible to get in so as to make them go after easier prey. Smart advice from an even smarter man! Indeed, mac adresses can be spoofed, cloaked networks can be unclocked but as RARPSL said the idea is to make it as hard as possible to get a hacker (of which i would say .01% of the population actually can hack a wireless network, and .01% of those would care to go after yours) to hack your network.
Also some people debate the difference between WPA and WPA2 when in reality its just the stream cypher than changes - TKIP vs AES. WPA2 just standardizes the use of AES although with compatible hardware, WPA can use AES as well. There a difference between TKIP and AES? Sure... but not like it will matter.
--
The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to snipper_cr
said by snipper_cr :said by ReVeLaTeD :said by anonanonanonanon :
Yes, actually. You will be liable because it was your car...
That's FUD. But I bet I can find quite a few specialists who will substantiate how easy it is to crack Wi-Fi security in any case. I'll vouch for you on that one. I can actively decrypt a WEP enabled network in about 20 minutes and gain full unencrypted access. Passively with no clients in about 3-4 days. This is why I always encourage people to use WPA with a strong password. You also want to turn off the SSID Beacon and turn on MAC Filtering. While the lack of an SSID will prevent the network from being "seen" by simple probe packages and the Operating System it will not eliminate it. The MAC filtering will require the attacker to monitor the transmissions to get a MAC Address to claim to be so makes it harder but not impossible to get into the Router. In both cases you want to make it as hard as possible to get in so as to make them go after easier prey. |
|
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs:
| reply to Noah Vail
Well as far as WPA goes, its "uncrackable" if you have a strong password. As PV9man99 said, yes, you CAN technically "hack" a WPA network but in reality all it is is just a brute force attack on the 4 way handshake.
And you do not even have to wait for them to turn on/off their computer. Just do a DeAuthenticate attack (assuming your own network) and that will force it to reconnect. Capture the 4 way WPA handshake and then set it to brute force.
If you password is something like "soda" which is commonly found in a dictionary, its probably going to be breakable. But if it is something strong like "pv8man999" then unless you brute force THAT (which would take years with a million computers) you can reasonably assume its safe.
In reality you are not really attacking WPA as you do WEP. You really are getting down to either TKIP or AES and all you can do is brute force it.
--
The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :WRONG!! Would you be so kind as to provide evidence of a secure (uncrackable) wireless connection?
I'll just sit here and listen to your cricket farm while you rush right out and get that evidence.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. |
|
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| reply to Rothan Tik
said by Rothan Tik :said by ReVeLaTeD :said by anonanonanonanon :
Yes, actually. You will be liable because it was your car...
That's FUD. If someone steals my car and I'm aware of the theft, and I report it promptly, and the thief runs over people, I am not to blame. In the Wi-Fi stealing deal, it's not easy to detect when someone's stealing your signal. Thus it's not easy to prove that I did or did not know someone else used my signal. Unless you can prove that I knowingly and willfully left it unlocked for that purpose - which also isn't easy to prove. But I bet I can find quite a few specialists who will substantiate how easy it is to crack Wi-Fi security in any case. I think one would notice when their connection starts crawling because they've become a seeder for other downloads. That's asking too much sense from people though... Your Honor, Time Warner has had so many issues with the network, especially on Sunday evenings when the connection slows to a crawl. You see, because I'm in an apartment complex, the cable internet is split amongst everyone here, and the node gets oversaturated when everyone is on it simultaneously. Slowdowns are quite common. My attorney has about 40 tenants who will testify to that.
See how easy that was? Connection degradation is so common it can't be used as an excuse. Unless you're on FioS...which I am not. |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to lordofwhee
depends on what state you live in
--
BlooMe |
|
Rothan Tik
Premium
join:2000-11-07
Danvers, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
said by ReVeLaTeD :said by anonanonanonanon :
Yes, actually. You will be liable because it was your car...
That's FUD. If someone steals my car and I'm aware of the theft, and I report it promptly, and the thief runs over people, I am not to blame. In the Wi-Fi stealing deal, it's not easy to detect when someone's stealing your signal. Thus it's not easy to prove that I did or did not know someone else used my signal. Unless you can prove that I knowingly and willfully left it unlocked for that purpose - which also isn't easy to prove. But I bet I can find quite a few specialists who will substantiate how easy it is to crack Wi-Fi security in any case. I think one would notice when their connection starts crawling because they've become a seeder for other downloads. That's asking too much sense from people though... |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Pv8man999
said by Pv8man999 :
Sorry snipper-cr
WPA and WPA2 have been almost as easy to crack as WEP.
All you need is just one handshake packet (person needs to turn PC on, or connect once)
I don't think there is a such thing as a secure wireless connection.
WRONG!!
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
Pv8man999
@wideopenwest.com
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail
| reply to snipper_cr
Sorry snipper-cr
WPA and WPA2 have been almost as easy to crack as WEP.
All you need is just one handshake packet (person needs to turn PC on, or connect once)
I don't think there is a such thing as a secure wireless connection. |
|
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs:
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
said by ReVeLaTeD :said by anonanonanonanon :
Yes, actually. You will be liable because it was your car...
That's FUD. But I bet I can find quite a few specialists who will substantiate how easy it is to crack Wi-Fi security in any case. I'll vouch for you on that one. I can actively decrypt a WEP enabled network in about 20 minutes and gain full unencrypted access. Passively with no clients in about 3-4 days. This is why I always encourage people to use WPA with a strong password.
--
The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. |
|
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| reply to anonanonanonanon
said by anonanonanonanon :
Yes, actually. You will be liable because it was your car...
That's FUD.
If someone steals my car and I'm aware of the theft, and I report it promptly, and the thief runs over people, I am not to blame.
In the Wi-Fi stealing deal, it's not easy to detect when someone's stealing your signal. Thus it's not easy to prove that I did or did not know someone else used my signal. Unless you can prove that I knowingly and willfully left it unlocked for that purpose - which also isn't easy to prove. But I bet I can find quite a few specialists who will substantiate how easy it is to crack Wi-Fi security in any case. |
|
anonanonanonanon
@rr.com | reply to lordofwhee
Yes, actually. You will be liable because it was your car... |
|
lordofwhee
join:2007-10-21
Everett, WA | reply to TKJunkMail
There's a difference between sharing your connection and having it stolen. Are you responsible if someone steals your car then runs over five people? |
|
